If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

[Why another fork?] Mainly to protect the users of our desktop components. Pinning patched packages higher than underlying packages proves far too tricky. The amount of patches in each mentioned component qualifies fork-status anyway, so it was time to admit it.

So another clown squad decided to grow neckbeards and humiliate themselves. Did they contact upstream to ask for maintainership or how to proceed forward? No. They say upstream is dead that is not quite true. Increasingly inactive yes but the infrastructure is working and a lot of people keeps an eye on the code.

Forking is taking over complete responsibility which these havent shown at upstream. This is just a bunch of lame ass forksters having a few minutes of fame.

So another clown squad decided to grow neckbeards and humiliate themselves. Did they contact upstream to ask for maintainership or how to proceed forward? No. They say upstream is dead that is not quite true. Increasingly inactive yes but the infrastructure is working and a lot of people keeps an eye on the code.

Forking is taking over complete responsibility which these havent shown at upstream. This is just a bunch of lame ass forksters having a few minutes of fame.

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply return the few options people want and need (2d desktop, classic shell...) to the official version instead of having this mess? People fork because users are being ignored, and the official version is already a minority compared to the forks.

I'm reading between the lines, that they'll port gnome-panel to GTK+3, or am I mistaken? That would justify a fork.

Their website isn't exactly clear on the subject, but no. There's no need to port gnome-panel to GTK+3, because the Gnome guys already did that job - the panel might not be used by Shell, but it was ported and maintained as part of the fallback mode. And it appears that these guys are smart enough to take advantage of the work that's already been done - forked versions of the post-GTK3 panel and related packages, and using the upstream Gnome3 versions of other stuff.

This puts them in the same category as Cinnamon - a minor fork of Gnome 3, rather than the MATE approach of adopting the entire Gnome2 legacy codebase.

Mate is based on 'dead technology' and a 'complete fork of GNOME2' yet 'incompatible with GNOME itself(!)'. Consort only forks the fallback parts.

Originally Posted by BO$$

This is the problem with open source. Since you can't tell some idiots that they are wrong and users don't want their shit and tell them to do it right, you're only option is to either fork or start from scratch. It would be much better if the gnome 3 idiots would admit their mistake and fix it instead of maintaining so many forks, but we can't force them to fix the issues. So more wasted manpower.

Wasn't choice and freedom, which you are seeing here right now one of the 'main advantages' of open source? Besides, you don't HAVE to use the other forks. And about wasted manpower, dude look around in this society. I see people slaughtering other people based on religion/politics/ethnicity. At least these developers are not wasting their time in bothering other people. They are actually convinced they have a better alternative and do what they say, without needing other peoples consent. How does that bother you in any way? Perceived wasted manpower on other projects, the world does not revolve around you u know...